D100 - no user upgrade for a reason!

[Louis]

Well I don't believe your statements are accurate I will say that I
was more upset before I'd seen the JPG comparisons and realized
that Nikon really hasn't changed them at all. Now to me, the color
profile is annoying at most but not worth losing my camera for 2
weeks to stop from coming up again. To me, the update isn't worth
it and anyone really thinks this is a fix then you'll have to show
me proof of such because I haven't seen any evidence of it.

Phil Askey is a great guy providing this web site. He may black me
out since he is a pretty picky guy. Try to post something where in
the title you write "Phil you are wrong". It will never pass.

Phil great editor than but he is not a scientist.

Whoever said on his site he was a scientist?

Or a photographer?

He is a reviewer/critic of digital cameras.

And a foremost a great programmger of a world
class site devoted to digital photography.

Enought said alreadly.

Louis

He should let

people that know the matter to talk about and avoid this pathetic
defense of Nikon. No camera retuning is necessary for SW upgrades.
All the programmers keep these tables in a separate memory area and
they don't overlap them during the upgrades. Flash memory have
separate blocks that you rewrite one at the time or you can even
skip. SW engineers keep precious tuning info in one of these
blocks. Even when the total rewriting is necessary they save for a
few seconds the tuning data on the RAM usually used as a buffer
than they copy it back to the flash.
This is programming one on one. Phil is not a programmer, it should
talk of what he knows not what he doesn't know.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Thorsten49231]

Let me get ONE THING VERY CLEAR.

I am not "SIDING" with anyone here. I am trying to point out that
there will be reasons that this isn't a user installable upgrade.
The fact that you even consider it "siding" is disturbing, isn't it?

You are, even though you may think you are not.

The users of your forum say "we don't like to have to send our cameras in for something as simple as a software upgrade", "we feel cheated by Nikon for this". Your response is "it may not be technically possible in the D100", which is neutral, but also "you're unreasonable to request this as strongly as you do". In doing the latter, you're forgetting that the customer is always right and you clearly come across as defending the manufacturer.

Whether the D100 can be upgraded simply by inserting a CF card with the right file on it or not, we will find out sooner or later. You have to agree that it's pretty stupid and annoying of Nikon not to build-in/offer this functionality when this is a rather routine thing to do. Don't you?
--

• Thorsten

 

[Thorsten49231]

We all understand and appreciate the complexity
involved in this technology, and the majority of us would support
Nikon if we felt we're being dealt with honestly and openly.

--

• Thorsten

 

[Thorsten49231]

That's a key IF. You may very well be right. But it's only an IF.
While it may be naive to think that there are no undocumented bug
fixes in this firmware upgrade it is also paranoid behavior to
assume that there are and that Nikon is hiding them.

It is standard procedure to issue software fixes with many minor fixes, only the most important of which are publicly announced. Some of the fixes impact too few people to bother listing, some are too obscure to explaining, some may resolve potential (not actual) problems, etc. This is standard and quite understandable from the manufacturer's point of view.

--

• Thorsten

 

[Phil Askey]

Sorry, where did I say exactly "you're unreasonable to request this as strongly as you do".?

Let me get ONE THING VERY CLEAR.

I am not "SIDING" with anyone here. I am trying to point out that
there will be reasons that this isn't a user installable upgrade.
The fact that you even consider it "siding" is disturbing, isn't it?

You are, even though you may think you are not.

The users of your forum say "we don't like to have to send our
cameras in for something as simple as a software upgrade", "we feel
cheated by Nikon for this". Your response is "it may not be
technically possible in the D100", which is neutral, but also
"you're unreasonable to request this as strongly as you do". In
doing the latter, you're forgetting that the customer is always
right and you clearly come across as defending the manufacturer.

Whether the D100 can be upgraded simply by inserting a CF card with
the right file on it or not, we will find out sooner or later. You
have to agree that it's pretty stupid and annoying of Nikon not to
build-in/offer this functionality when this is a rather routine
thing to do. Don't you?
--

• Thorsten

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Greg Gebhardt]

Guys,

CHILL OUT!

There are many digital cameras (consumer and D-SLR) which can't be
flashed by the user simply because of the type of EEPROM chip they
use to hold the firmware.

Phil I work in the company that provides the highest number of
Flash memory in the world. Flash memory are built in order to do
this kinf of upgrades. I'm a professional in this field, I know
what I'm talking about.

If Nikon is so stupid and they can't design a camera that need
special services (yes, right, done at the UPS center...) they don't
deserve my business.
We are in the year 2002, the man went to the moon more than 30
years ago, a 2000$ camera HAS TO BE user upgradable. If not, well,
it is a bad design, SW, FW.

Truth is different. Nikon is a pretty stubborn company and it is
the reason why Canon is eating their lunch and their dinner. This
people want to micromanage the high end products. They don't trust
us. On top of that they have great market (generated by themselves)
and in order to fight it, they use these methods and they make ALL
the customer suffer.

Too bad I'm locked in with all these lenses otherwise it would be
bye, bye, Nikon.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

--

Why don't you sell your Nikon equipment and give us all a break! People like you will make Nikon think twice about doing further updates. Either sell it or send it in. You probly got yours boxed and ready to go!

Greg Gebhardt D1, D1x, CP5000 & CP5700
Jacksonville, Florida

 

[Arash Hazeghi]

Phil are you sure about the caliboration software?

I guess the case with D100 "and the whole D1 series" is that they are not equipped with the common FLASH ROM we see on other cameras such as Nikon's own Coolpix series, this is actually what many firmware upgradeable devices "motherboards, CD-writers etc. " use, for some reason the ROM on the D100 has to be written through different gates which are protected from being written by the camera's OS, may be there are different gates on the camera's circuitry for accessing the ROM, what is clear is that Nikon could have made these gates accessible for firmware upgrades very easily, as they have done in coolpix series, but for some reason they hadn't "we can't call this a technical limitation" and since they are handling this issue free of charge, we can't say they have done this to charge extra money, in fact it would have been more econimcal for themselves to put the firmware on their web site rather than having the body shipped and the personel performing the upgrade... Whatever the reason it is of course inconvinient for the costumers to return their cameras back "for instance there is no Nikon service center where I live so I have to make a trip abroad if I want my camera updated which is actually not practical

What we have to see is that if the revision 2.00 will bring any darmatic changes to camera's performance and picture quality, I hope you will take the time to do this....
Thanks for your comprehensive reviews
Arash

Guys,

CHILL OUT!

There are many digital cameras (consumer and D-SLR) which can't be
flashed by the user simply because of the type of EEPROM chip they
use to hold the firmware. Sony digital cameras for example can't
be flashed by the user and have to be taken to a service center.

Nikon are offering the upgrade for free, all you have to do is get
the camera to the service center.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Ilan Shanon]

I find it interesting that the common theme in this thread is that everyone is GUESSING about Nikon's reasons for providing this update in the manner which they are. I believe that the underlying frustration is that none of us knows the truth/facts in this situation. Nikon's reluctance to level with its market is "old company" mentality, which doesn't consider how sophisticated today's market is due to the internet, and thanks to site sponsors such as Phil. When markets change as dramatically as the photo market is presently (film to digital), there are usually major changes in company leaderships. For instance, IBM was in deep trouble when they tried to maintain operating system propriety in the 70's & 80's when the PC emerged. And while they've made a great comback, a small company called Microsoft became the leader of the pack. I think that Nikon is lucky to have access to our input. Whether they act on it or not, and whether they deal with their customers honestly, will determine how successful they'll be compared to other companies who listen to their customers.

Ilan Shanon
Nikon F4s, D100, sb80dx, sb26, sb27
All Nikon Lenses: 50mm f1.8, 18-35, 28-105, 35-70 f2.8, 80-200mm f2.8

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

I can respond but I have long refused to reply to ignorant people
especially ignorant people in my own profession. You are not the
only engineer in this forum and no one in this forum knows what
exactly is changed in the firmware other than those 4 things they
posted.

What is changed had better be exactly those five things they've posted (don't forget the D info fix needed for NC 3.5).

People are basing their decision s on weather or not to tie up a canera for over a week (and subject it to the dangers of shipping thousands of miles) on how well those five things match their needs.

If Nikon gets a reputation for "slipstreaming" other needed, but unannounced, fixes in with the announced ones, then people will send in cameras every time a new firmware is announced, hoping to get the "hidden" fixes.

I would not question the ability of Nikon engineers and
their decision unless I know all the facts.

Neither would I. But I would certainly question the motives and decisions of their management. Remember the "hidden recall" of the F100 rewind fork?

ebay your gear and move on.. you can get a Fuji or a Kodak with
your lens.. Or move to Canon and have more fun there.. better yet..
quit your job and find an engineering position at Nikon and tell
them they are all insane and noone can do decent design there.

Again, it's not an engineering decision, it's a management and marketing one. The engineers did a bang up job, no body dowbts that. We've got eye witnesses who have seen that the D100 updates exactly like its competition, insert a CF card with the update, and it copies it to onboard flash.

Ciao!

Joe

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

...(don't forget the D info fix needed for NC 3.5).

This is definitely no fix but a new feature!

NC 3.0 didn't specify this vignetting correction thing either. So again no fix but a thrilling new feature.

Regards, A. Schiele

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Sorry but this is totally incorrect. While I don't know for sure
that any re-calibration is carried out on the D100 I do know that
other upgrades which have required return to service center for
other camera models have indeed included running special
re-calibration applications on the camera.

Now you're just playing semantic games, taking advantage of something Gabriel said that may not be true in 100% of cases, but is certainly true in MOST cases, including this one. I'll grant you that there can be upgrades that require retuning (there are in my industry, too).

But this isn't one of them. If you believe Nikon, this upgrade does 5 things, all of which involve file formats, device drivers, or protocol stacks.

You posted an explanation, under the header "no user upgrade for a reason!". Considering your position of authority, if you are going to make such a claim, you should make some attempt to insure that it is a "valid" reason. Your explanation isn't even remotely plausible, given both the evidence of many eye witnesses who have seen the firmware update procedure, and the posts of engineers from a multitude of disciplines who have shared their experiences designing similar systems.

Ciao!

Joe

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

...(don't forget the D info fix needed for NC 3.5).

This is definitely no fix but a new feature!

Sorry, by my standards it's a fix. Digital cameras, for years, have been including distance info in their EXIF headers. Nikon left this off on their D-SLRs, despite having it in cameras like the CP-990. So, they obviously know how to make it work, and I doubt the memory of the D100 is so full that they couldn't include this info. So, yes, either the exclusion of this info was an accident (and including it was a "fix") or a management decision (in which case, putting it back in to enable new features of OTHER software is also a "fix").

NC 3.0 didn't specify this vignetting correction thing either. So
again no fix but a thrilling new feature.

I'm not thrilled.

Ciao!

Joe

 

[Matt Makauskas]

Thorsten, I completely agree with you that Phil should have only included the facts for why the upgrade has to be done in house at Nikon. Someone in his position, I would think, should have enough pull to find out this information intsead if simply assuming that something else had to be done to the camera as part of the upgrade that the user can not do at home.

If it wasn't an assumption, then he should have stated it differently to be completely clear.

I also think that people have gone overboard with thier reaction to having to send the camera in. Personally, I do think it is an inconvinience, but I appreciate the hadware enough to put up with the firmware situation without being upset. I really like shooting with the D100, even with firmware 1.00.

I will be going to Nikon on Friday to have the upgrade done. I will try and ask Nikon while I'm there for any technical reasons, or otherwise, why the upgrade had to be done in house. Hopefully they can be reasonable with helping us understand. I'll let you guys know what heppened.

Matt

Let me get ONE THING VERY CLEAR.

I am not "SIDING" with anyone here. I am trying to point out that
there will be reasons that this isn't a user installable upgrade.
The fact that you even consider it "siding" is disturbing, isn't it?

You are, even though you may think you are not.

The users of your forum say "we don't like to have to send our
cameras in for something as simple as a software upgrade", "we feel
cheated by Nikon for this". Your response is "it may not be
technically possible in the D100", which is neutral, but also
"you're unreasonable to request this as strongly as you do". In
doing the latter, you're forgetting that the customer is always
right and you clearly come across as defending the manufacturer.

Whether the D100 can be upgraded simply by inserting a CF card with
the right file on it or not, we will find out sooner or later. You
have to agree that it's pretty stupid and annoying of Nikon not to
build-in/offer this functionality when this is a rather routine
thing to do. Don't you?
--

• Thorsten

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Andrew_Sz]

Rich, I have been tweaking my D100 since the day I bought it.
First, the pics were underexposed. So, I found out that I should
use +0.7 EV. Then I noticed the pics were soft. So, I set the
Sharpening to high. What's next?

My 990 took great pics right out
of the box.

My Canon G1 did the same...

I did the same tweaking you describe. After 2,5 months of ownership I am able to take pics the way I like them (nearly). I am not a Nikon newbie - I bought my first Nikon SLR in 1972 (F2 - still in perfect condition)

If the upgrade to ver. 2.0 improves underexposure problems, sharpness-issues, exposure-issues for the built-in flash, makes the ISO Auto feature to work properly I will go for it. Changing the ver.no. so radically from 1.01 to 2.0 should mean major changes compared with the traditions of the software industry... Otherwise not interested...

I have been taking pics and constantly tweaking the D100 to get it
right. I'm not even talking post processing in Photoshop.

Nikon Capture 3 3.5 should be delivered free of charge - this software is quite good to correct the above problems..

I was always satisfied with my Nikon equipment . This is the first time I feel, that Nikon didn't fullfill my expectations. I definitly take Canon in consideration next time..

Andreas Szekacs

 

[SoftD100]

explain to me how the type of eeprom is an issue ?? ehat you should say is that some have a eprom not a eeprom, a huge differance

but i agree , people should take a chill pill.

everyone is looking for 2.0 to fix issues that are a result of people not being able to use their cameras

Guys,

CHILL OUT!

There are many digital cameras (consumer and D-SLR) which can't be
flashed by the user simply because of the type of EEPROM chip they
use to hold the firmware. Sony digital cameras for example can't
be flashed by the user and have to be taken to a service center.

Nikon are offering the upgrade for free, all you have to do is get
the camera to the service center.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Dave Oddie]

Sigh.. Actually I am a programmer, but we'll let that one go.

And a foremost a great programmger of a world
class site devoted to digital photography.

Enought said alreadly.

Louis

He, he.

Since when has a web site developer been a programmer?

I hope Phil doesn't class himself as a programmer because he has put a very good web site together. He'll have the programmers union on his back if he does .

When he said "Actually I am a programmer..." I didn't think for a minute he meant web site developer. There is a big difference between the two.

Dave

 

[SoftD100]

Guys,

CHILL OUT!

There are many digital cameras (consumer and D-SLR) which can't be
flashed by the user simply because of the type of EEPROM chip they
use to hold the firmware. Sony digital cameras for example can't
be flashed by the user and have to be taken to a service center.

Nikon are offering the upgrade for free, all you have to do is get
the camera to the service center.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Phil-
I hope you can understand our gripe. I just purchased my D-100 2
weeks ago and already it needs a firmware upgrade? That is utterly
rediculous. Never have I purchased a product, computer or
otherwise, that required an update one week after I purchased it.

your kidding arent you ?? , name me a peice of software that there wasnt bugs found in that needed updating or wasnt updated to add features that ungratful users thought they were entilted to ?

I fell in love with the D-100. I'm shooting events every weekend
since I got it. Now, I have to pack it up and ship it away for two
weeks? Terrible. I don't have a camera of equal quality as a
backup.

so your useing a camera every weekend for wich you have no equal replacement !!, wow the d100 must be good

I'm not a happy camper. Nikon should send me a

replacement while I'm getting mine fixed. Notice I said fixed and
not upgraded. I truly believe that it's a fix.

i guess that you only beleive that because you are one of the few that cannot seem to operate the camera corectly and get fine pictures.

Anyway, I think

our point was made on this forum and I hope Nikon is/was listening
to the unhappy D100 customers. No business, I repeat no business,
can afford to have unhappy customers these days. The economy is
bad enough. I'll get off my soapbox now.

BTW, you have a great website and forum. Your information and
reviews have been brilliant. Keep up the good work. Rob

 

[herbet50979]

I have only positive things to say about Nikon.

The users of your forum say "we don't like to have to send our
cameras in for something as simple as a software upgrade", "we feel
cheated by Nikon for this".

 

[Phil Askey]

Actually I wrote every single line of code for this site and many sites before that, I've written device drivers for HP-UX (Unix) boxes, coded in assembly way back when, am trained in half a dozen languages and have programmed in more than that. The ISAPI filters used on this site were written from scratch by me in Visual C++.

But never mind, I wouldn't know what I was talking about.

Sigh.. Actually I am a programmer, but we'll let that one go.

And a foremost a great programmger of a world
class site devoted to digital photography.

Enought said alreadly.

Louis

He, he.

Since when has a web site developer been a programmer?

I hope Phil doesn't class himself as a programmer because he has
put a very good web site together. He'll have the programmers
union on his back if he does .

When he said "Actually I am a programmer..." I didn't think for a
minute he meant web site developer. There is a big difference
between the two.

Dave

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

The reason appears to be pretty simple. Kodak cameras have two flash parts, or one larger part that's segmented in halves. I strongly suspect that the Nikon cameras have only one.

All firmware in everything electronics, from computers to cell phones, use flash memory these days. The way these parts work is such that they need to be erased, then written to, all at once. If the data transfer should be interrupted, then the device will be rendered inoperable.

I can tell you that this is the reason we don't support user flash upgrades for the devices we make around here. If it gets messed up, the unit is dead and that means it has to go back to the service shop to be straightened out. Most times, it means that the part needs to be yanked off the board and replaced.

Ever notice that computers tend to use dual parts, so that one is still useable in the event that the other gets hosed up during a reflash? Maybe it's too subtle to notice unless you've had a load mess up and suddenly found yourself coming back up with a BIOS revision that is two levels back.

Kodak's cameras work in the same way. At least both my 620x and 660 do. They do this for two reasons. One is the risk of a bad flash write. The other is if the new firmware should have a bug, it'll switch to the one before. I've seen both my cameras do this should they hang up.

The Kodak units are larger than the Nikon ones, so it may well be that Nikon just didn't have the space to use dual flash parts in their design. It might be that they wanted to save on the cost of the second part. It may be that they just like the idea of having it already in a repair center should things go wrong.

Heck, it may be that they just don't trust end users to actually do the upgrade right in the first place. I know that I don't trust end users to properly reflash the firmware in the products I design!

Regardless of the reason that Nikon has decided that the units must go back for a reflash, that's what must happen. They aren't going to change their minds about this no matter how many posts there might be on the subject.

That leaves all of us to simply decide when, or even if, we will send out cameras in for the update. Personally, I'm not sending my D1H in for it any time soon. I don't see the need. The camera is working fine as it is.

Stan

Guys,

CHILL OUT!

There are many digital cameras (consumer and D-SLR) which can't be
flashed by the user simply because of the type of EEPROM chip they
use to hold the firmware. Sony digital cameras for example can't
be flashed by the user and have to be taken to a service center.

Nikon are offering the upgrade for free, all you have to do is get
the camera to the service center.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
More info and list of gear is in my Posters' Profile.